Conservative values/principles

[Starlight]

A non-racist would consider minorities equals to whites, thus strong and adequate enough to take care of themselves, hence don't need special or exceptional assistance from the state.

Your point would be valid if the starting-point had been the same. But there has been a long history of state-sponsored discrimination against those minorities with the result that at this point in time they are in a much worse place, socio-economically, than the majority. It's reasonable for the state to now put at least a small fraction of that previous effort into proactively addressing the imbalance it artificially created, and do a little bit of fixing the situation.

I'm not suggesting that there be a dollar-for-dollar payout. I'm just saying that if you read the history, the state was actively guilty of actions that negatively and intentionally impacted black people, and the effect today is that black people on the whole are poorer than white people, and the reason for that is primarily, above everything else, that the state ensured their ancestors weren't as wealthy as white people and perpetuated their poverty.

Obviously, if the state were to totally cease any action that negatively impacted black people, then we could expect, eventually, over the generations, the situation to even itself out. But why wait 10 generations or so to have a fair and equal society? Why not have it now? Why shouldn't the state act now to fix what the state broke previously? The state did wrong. It should own up to that, it should face some sort of consequence and pay some sort of price, and perform some sort of acts to address the situation positively. Promising to cease to do additional harm to the victims doesn't really cut it, and isn't really justice, and we wouldn't tolerate for any other criminal, so why should we think the state should be allowed to get away with that?

[Watermelon]

Again, you're assuming that those white male representatives are not being voted for by minorities, or that white male representatives are not adequately able to promote the interests of minority citizens. You persist in your racist thinking apparently without even realizing it.

[seanD]

Your point would be valid if the starting-point had been the same. But there has been a long history of state-sponsored discrimination against those minorities with the result that at this point in time they are in a much worse place, socio-economically, than the majority. It's reasonable for the state to now put at least a small fraction of that previous effort into proactively addressing the imbalance it artificially created, and do a little bit of fixing the situation.

I'm not suggesting that there be a dollar-for-dollar payout. I'm just saying that if you read the history, the state was actively guilty of actions that negatively and intentionally impacted black people, and the effect today is that black people on the whole are poorer than white people, and the reason for that is primarily, above everything else, that the state ensured their ancestors weren't as wealthy as white people and perpetuated their poverty.

Obviously, if the state were to totally cease any action that negatively impacted black people, then we could expect, eventually, over the generations, the situation to even itself out. But why wait 10 generations or so to have a fair and equal society? Why not have it now? Why shouldn't the state act now to fix what the state broke previously? The state did wrong. It should own up to that, it should face some sort of consequence and pay some sort of price, and perform some sort of acts to address the situation positively. Promising to cease to do additional harm to the victims doesn't really cut it, and isn't really justice, and we wouldn't tolerate for any other criminal, so why should we think the state should be allowed to get away with that?

Let me copy my post here again because there's a lot of stuff you omitted that's important here...

You actually have the politics of racism completely twisted. Conservatives generally oppose social programs because they feel people have an obligation to take care of themselves, including minorities. Conservatives are accused of being racist by the left for saying that, but that's precisely what a racist WOULDN'T say. A non-racist would consider minorities equals to whites, thus strong and adequate enough to take care of themselves, hence don't need special or exceptional assistance from the state. A racist would say that minorities need help from the state, which implies they're inferior and inadequate, thus can't take care of themselves. They'd even pander these special programs just to get their votes, knowing full well the negative impact these programs might have on the minorities in the long run (that might even be the intentional desire of some). Which political side makes that argument? We know which side does. Then when you couple that with the psychology of projection it makes perfect sense who the racists truly are. The preacher who's guilty of secretly sleeping with prostitutes will be the most outspoken about sexual sin and accusatory of others. And that's exactly what liberals do. They're the most outspoken about racism, even frivolous accusations of racism that don't exist, and readily accuse others of being racists (including against minorities themselves), because they're projecting.

Yup, black financial achievement is waning because much of that has to do with the Trojan horse called the Great Society passed by the flaming racist himself LBJ. Those policies still have negative impact on minority communities today. What I can't figure out is whether it was intentional or not. Being that he was an open and unabashed racist, it would appear it was intentional. Biden also impeded progress with his anti desegregation stance. When busing was finally accepted, no thanks to Biden, evidence shows that blacks progressed and achievement gaps narrowed.

A lot of it also has to do with low education levels of blacks. But this is not because of white systemic racism, as the state has currently made a lot of exceptional accommodations for minorities and higher education. It's because native blacks, particularly in the hood where I live, shun higher education and either don't give it high priority or just admonish it as a negative. Educated blacks are looked down upon as an Uncle Tom or a sellout in the black community. I can't tell you how many times I myself was accused of "trying to sound like a white boy" because I spoke articulately and didn't sound like a hoodrat. Fortunately those attitudes are changing, particularly with the youth, but the change is very slow and gradual. So a lot of it is attributed to liberal policies as well as self-infliction within the black community itself.

[Mountain Man]

If you don't hold to either of those assumptions, then what does it matter what color congressmen are? There are a lot of reasons besides the "systemic racism" bogeyman that can explain the racial makeup of Republican candidates.

[seer]

If you don't hold to either of those assumptions, then what does it matter what color congressmen are? There are a lot of reasons besides the "systemic racism" bogeyman that can explain the racial makeup of Republican candidates.

Like the fact that a lot of people of color gravitate towards more liberal policies.

[shunyadragon]

Let me copy my post here again because there's a lot of stuff you omitted that's important here...



Yup, black financial achievement is waning because much of that has to do with the Trojan horse called the Great Society passed by the flaming racist himself LBJ. Those policies still have negative impact on minority communities today. What I can't figure out is whether it was intentional or not. Being that he was an open and unabashed racist, it would appear it was intentional. Biden also impeded progress with his anti desegregation stance. When busing was finally accepted, no thanks to Biden, evidence shows that blacks progressed and achievement gaps narrowed.

A lot of it also has to do with low education levels of blacks. But this is not because of white systemic racism, as the state has currently made a lot of exceptional accommodations for minorities and higher education. It's because native blacks, particularly in the hood where I live, shun higher education and either don't give it high priority or just admonish it as a negative. Educated blacks are looked down upon as an Uncle Tom or a sellout in the black community. I can't tell you how many times I myself was accused of "trying to sound like a white boy" because I spoke articulately and didn't sound like a hoodrat. Fortunately those attitudes are changing, particularly with the youth, but the change is very slow and gradual. So a lot of it is attributed to liberal policies as well as self-infliction within the black community itself.

Your neglecting the history of the denial of benifits to blacks in the GI Bill for education and housing, and farm loans in particular up until the 1990s. as well as not having many employment opportunities denied. Oh also the literal physical destruction of many black communities in the late 19th century and the twentieth century. The blacks were herded into ghettos in cities due to the history of housing discrimiation and and the rejection of loans, and the lack of job opportunities. The history of persection and discrimination reslted in the gerations of problems for the blacks that continue today.

The conservative Democratic South blocked legislation to end discrimination. antilynching laws and voter rights in the name of State Rights since the end of the reconstruction. When the legeslation finally passed in the 1960s the Dixiecrat White South turned Republican, and remains so today. Fortunately things are slowly changing.

Also the Democratic South blocked the right of women's right to vote for many years until Tennesee passed by one vote.

[Whateverman]

When conservatives talk about "valuing the constitution" they seem to mean something really complicated, which doesn't seem to have much relationship with what those words would mean to a normal English speaker as far as I can tell.

They appear to mean:
1. They really strongly value really creative interpretations of tidbits of the constitution. e.g. The 2nd amendment as interpreted by the 5-4 majority in the 2008 SCOTUS case. e.g. The freedom of religion phrase in the 1st amendment as reinterpreted to mean that the US is specifically a Christian nation and non-Christian religions and lack of religious belief are to be second-class at best.

2. They reject bits of the constitution they don't like. e.g. Their dislike of the 'fake news' mainstream media overrides their interest in the 1st amendment's protection for the press, so they tend to support Trump crackdowns on it. e.g. their dislike of Black Lives Matter protesters overrides their interest in the Due Process clauses in the amendments, so they tend to be fine with secret police kidnapping protesters off the street and taking them away in unmarked vans etc.

3. The vast vast majority of the constitution they don't seem the least bit interested in. They seem to generally show no interest in becoming lawyers or in reading the constitution.

4. Liking the constitution seems to be shorthand for wanting to get back to the creatively re-imagined non-historical glories of the founding age of the US, when more conservative values were followed on the whole, back before modern liberalism had taken over America. It seems like a yearning for imagined earlier 'better times' that were actually pretty terrible times, but in the imagination it's thought that times like that could have been good if we had them again without the bad parts. It's a "well apart from the whole slavery thing, and then the whole KKK thing, those times were pretty good, right?" attitude, where people who have never seriously studied any history imagine for themselves what history could have been like.

5. By saying they like the constitution they virtue signal among themselves that they're part of the group described by #1 through #4, and particularly #4 in particular.

So their "valuing the constitution" seems to actually equate to valuing only about a dozen words in the actual constitution. It doesn't seem to be so much the document they value, as the social values and norms that were prevalent in society at the time the constitution was written that they like, in contrast to the more liberal values of society today.

I agree with almost all of this, and would love to discuss / debate the tiny objections I have. Nonetheless, I'm trying to keep the thread productive/constructive, so i'll just limit my response to this.

[Maranatha]

There's no need to be hostile. If someone stood up and said "the simple and complete answer is Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God", you would be entirely reasonably and justified in replying "there's obviously more to it" - and you wouldn't be deciding what people believe.

It's a brute fact that conservatives value more than the constitution.

I had no intention of arguing with conservatives, but if you're going be hostile about this, I'll tell you where you're wrong.

You are the one saying there is more to it, but you won't say how.

Are you asking for the Soul of Conservatism to answer your question?

You asked, and I answered. You waved your hand, and dismissed. I am not hostile, but pointing out your dismissal without engagement is what? Elitist?

The answer I have was after pondering it, making sure I remove God from the equation, removing any religious thought. I just don't see you as serious, but thanks anyway.

[seanD]

Your neglecting the history of the denial of benifits to blacks in the GI Bill for education and housing, and farm loans in particular up until the 1990s. as well as not having many employment opportunities denied. Oh also the literal physical destruction of many black communities in the late 19th century and the twentieth century. The blacks were herded into ghettos in cities due to the history of housing discrimiation and and the rejection of loans, and the lack of job opportunities. The history of persection and discrimination reslted in the gerations of problems for the blacks that continue today.

The conservative Democratic South blocked legislation to end discrimination. antilynching laws and voter rights in the name of State Rights since the end of the reconstruction. When the legeslation finally passed in the 1960s the Dixiecrat White South turned Republican, and remains so today. Fortunately things are slowly changing.

Also the Democratic South blocked the right of women's right to vote for many years until Tennesee passed by one vote.

Not that I agree with anything you're arguing is even accurate, I was speaking about things from the latter 20th century to the present.

[seer]

Not that I agree with anything you're arguing is even accurate, I was speaking about things from the latter 20th century to the present.

It is funny, during the back the blue rally I was at Saturday night I got into a conversation with one of the counter protesters. He was a young black guy from a larger city. He was carrying a "F" the cops sign. We had a good talk actually - We got on the subject of fatherless homes in the inner city - he agreed that it was one of the major problems. I asked him why it rose so high over the last 50 years or so - he blamed the Democrats and the welfare system. It stunned both me and my son.

back-the-blue-manassas-.jpg 20200718-220606-pic-838584236.jpg

[rogue06]

No it isn't, it would be a fact. Since 13% of the population commits 50% of the murders and 48% of the robberies that segment is committing these violent crimes way out of portion to their population size. If we are not to see that as being more violent what are we to see it as?

morecrime.jpg

[Watermelon]

If you don't hold to either of those assumptions, then what does it matter what color congressmen are? There are a lot of reasons besides the "systemic racism" bogeyman that can explain the racial makeup of Republican candidates.

[Charles]

When conservatives talk about "valuing the constitution" they seem to mean something really complicated, which doesn't seem to have much relationship with what those words would mean to a normal English speaker as far as I can tell.

They appear to mean:
1. They really strongly value really creative interpretations of tidbits of the constitution. e.g. The 2nd amendment as interpreted by the 5-4 majority in the 2008 SCOTUS case. e.g. The freedom of religion phrase in the 1st amendment as reinterpreted to mean that the US is specifically a Christian nation and non-Christian religions and lack of religious belief are to be second-class at best.

2. They reject bits of the constitution they don't like. e.g. Their dislike of the 'fake news' mainstream media overrides their interest in the 1st amendment's protection for the press, so they tend to support Trump crackdowns on it. e.g. their dislike of Black Lives Matter protesters overrides their interest in the Due Process clauses in the amendments, so they tend to be fine with secret police kidnapping protesters off the street and taking them away in unmarked vans etc.

3. The vast vast majority of the constitution they don't seem the least bit interested in. They seem to generally show no interest in becoming lawyers or in reading the constitution.

4. Liking the constitution seems to be shorthand for wanting to get back to the creatively re-imagined non-historical glories of the founding age of the US, when more conservative values were followed on the whole, back before modern liberalism had taken over America. It seems like a yearning for imagined earlier 'better times' that were actually pretty terrible times, but in the imagination it's thought that times like that could have been good if we had them again without the bad parts. It's a "well apart from the whole slavery thing, and then the whole KKK thing, those times were pretty good, right?" attitude, where people who have never seriously studied any history imagine for themselves what history could have been like.

5. By saying they like the constitution they virtue signal among themselves that they're part of the group described by #1 through #4, and particularly #4 in particular.

So their "valuing the constitution" seems to actually equate to valuing only about a dozen words in the actual constitution. It doesn't seem to be so much the document they value, as the social values and norms that were prevalent in society at the time the constitution was written that they like, in contrast to the more liberal values of society today.

But the conservatives have God on their side.

At least in their own really creative interpretation.

[seer]

But the conservatives have God on their side.

At least in their own really creative interpretation.

Not all conservatives are theists...

[seer]

It is funny, during the back the blue rally I was at Saturday night I got into a conversation with one of the counter protesters. He was a young black guy from a larger city. He was carrying a "F" the cops sign. We had a good talk actually - We got on the subject of fatherless homes in the inner city - he agreed that it was one of the major problems. I asked him why it rose so high over the last 50 years or so - he blamed the Democrats and the welfare system. It stunned both me and my son.

We actually made the local paper, shaking hands after or discussion. Bringing a little peace...

Support.jpg